Immigration Reform and the Texas Republican Platform
by Norman Adams on March 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM
Dr. Steven Hotze of Conservative Republicans of Texas has personally been promoting the TxSIP position on Sensible Immigration Policy.
Resolutions for the state platform start at the precinct caucuses on the night of the primary. From there they get presented at the various Senatorial District Conventions. My wife Debbie Sue and I presented our resolution and got it approved at our precinct caucus on March 2, 2010. We also got ourselves elected as delegates to the Senatorial Convention which was this past Saturday, March 20th.
On Saturday my one goal was to try to get our resolution included in what will be sent to the State Convention in April. Debbie and I arrived early and passed out about 2000 copies of my Plea to the GOP (in which you can read the sensible immigration platform). After our District Convention convened, and delegates were seated, we approved the “rules,” and then we recessed so those that were interested in resolutions could testify to the Resolutions Committee.
I went to the Resolutions Committee meeting and was not surprised to learn what the Resolutions Committee had crafted was “enforcement only.” Their proposed resolution allowed no one here illegally to stay, refused driver’s licenses, and revoked citizenship for “anchor babies!” I presented our resolution and had an opportunity to try to convince the committee. They voted me down. However, with a smile, I promised them they would have a chance to correct their vote, because I planned to bring my motion to the floor of the State District 15 convention. Incidentally, the Resolutions Committee listened to resolutions for more than two hours!
After that it was back to the SD 15 convention room to vote on the platform recommended by the Resolutions Committee. All amendments or substitutions presented in the convention have to be germain to a resolution presented. The first speaker made a motion to suspend the rules so she could present resolutions on issues not included in what the committee had presented. She was ruled out of order. I was then allowed to present my substitute resolution. Once the resolution is moved and seconded, you are allowed three speakers for and three against.
After me, a gentleman I do not know stepped to the mike as if opposed, but presented what I immediately accepted as a “friendly” amendment. He suggested I should have included an exception for military service in my sentence that says “no short cuts to citizenship.” It was a great suggestion! So the chair asked if anyone wanted to speak against the motion.
At least four people charged the mike. The first was a frantic lady that could not understand why I would want to allow violent criminals that rape and molest women to stay! The chair asked if there were any speakers in favor of the motion. I looked around, none appeared. So I stepped to the mike and said I believe the last speaker may not understand my motion. The resolution says ”positively identifies all noncitizens, deports those with violent criminal records.” I then said I consider rape or molestation to be violent. I would shoot someone breaking into my car or home. I do not consider running a red light or being stopped for a burned out tail light to be a violent crime.
Then the chair asked does anyone else want to oppose the motion? One of the folks standing jumped to the mike and explained “I don’t know what Mr. Adams is thinking. I have worked with the Border Patrol and I know how many terrorists are coming in through Mexico. I am opposed!” He got a big cheer from the crowd. Then the chair looked at me, and asked if I wanted to speak in favor. As no one else stood up, I went back to the mike. I again read from my resolution “Americans deserve a policy that controls our borders, positively identifies all noncitizens.” Then I gave my little lecture on more American born workers retiring, our inadequate fertility rate, and 50 million potential American born aborted since Roe v Wade.
The chair then allowed for one more opposed. Another gentleman stepped to the mike. “If anyone is in this country illegally, they need to be deported!" His comment drew what sounded like a standing ovation! The chair said we can allow one more in favor. Again, no one else stepped forward. I took the mike and spoke as calmly as I could! I tried to make the case for why the Republican Party must come together on the immigration issue. I talked about the shift in the Hispanic vote between Bush in ’04 and Obama in ’08. I told them, “If you want more of what is going on in DC right now, then vote my resolution down! But if you want to take a step toward attracting legal Hispanics back to the Republican Party, please help me pass this motion. I know emotions are running high. I am praying you will support this resolution!”
I stood in front of the room as the chair called for the vote. First he asked all in favor to stand. Second he asked all opposed to stand. The ayes had it by at least 60% to 40%! I could hardly believe it!
The meeting adjourned shortly and it seemed like everyone in the room wanted to thank me. The experience again proved a point that one of the TxSIP contractors Kevin Camarata tried to get across to Senator Cornyn. Kevin told the Senator, “The voting majority is bigger than the shouting minority!”
So SD 15, my district, will recommend our plank to state. In addition, Bob Price, a local spokesman for Border Watch could not wait to tell me he had gotten my plank approved in SD 7, probably the largest SD in the state!
I have no idea how many, if any, other districts adopted our plank. I will now concentrate on getting effective speakers to go with me on June 8th through 10th to testify in front of the State Platform Committee. That committee will have all 30 Senatorial Districts represented. As soon as I can get a list of those representatives, I will be asking TxSIP supporters to contact them. I will need all the help I can get finding business owners in their home districts.